The usual good stuff from Samantha. A couple of additional notes (beyond what I’ve written elsewhere on the matter):
1. There seems to be an unacknowledged conflict between the same people saying …
“I tune into sports to watch sports, not politics, so these athletes expressing political views is really inappropriate”
and
“How dare they disrespect our country, our national values, our military, and all this country represent?!”
In case it’s not clear, standing up and saluting for the national anthem is a political act. It’s declaring allegiance (or at least conformity) to an expression of national identity and patriotism — the very definition of politics.
If you’re not interested in politics at a sporting event, then why are we doing a big national anthem ceremony in front of all our sportsball games?
2. That 2009 thing Samantha mentions? Yeah, that’s an interesting one bit of historical not-so-trivia:
- http://people.com/politics/nfl-players-national-anthem-2009-government-payments/
- http://www.snopes.com/nfl-sideline-anthem/
Its more of an homage to soldiers who have died for these rights that so many take for granted. Police/Fire et cetera and others who have given life or limb. National anthem is homage to ppl symbolized by the flag. This country isn't perfect- sure ppl die from cop shootings. Protest the black on black shootings and crime. Just donit on your own time!
It sucks that you blame a country as a whole for problems created by a few. Instead of being disrespectful to the country's legacy, wouldn't you think creating pages like your's, dear sir, would be a better way to express anger against the said few?
+Eric Shane
1. That some people have decided that the national anthem at the beginning of every sporting event is actually a paean to military and first responders who have died doesn't make it a universal sentiment, let alone one hallowed by tradition. Nor are those the only people symbolized by the flag.
2. So black people can't criticize police shootings of blacks until they've resolved the problems of crime and black-on-black violence? Does that mean white people can't criticize protests against the national anthem until they've solved white racism?
3. "Just do it on your own time." So employers should be able to compel political speech by their employees?
+PaperBag I won't suggest the best peaceful way to express anger or disappointment or political protest. Certainly taking a knee during the national anthem has been far more effective and visible as a means of protest than posting something online.
+Dave Hill Sure, its effective, but also disrespectful, right?
Think about a soldier, working hard for the country, seeing all that he works for taking the blame. One may argue that America takes part in unnecessary conflicts, but they're just men taking orders and going through whatever the hell may face them to accomplish the those orders.
I don't want to compare or anything, but if the players really wanted to be rude to the country, the might as well burn the flag down and rub their bottoms against the remaining ashes.
Even if the USA has its flaws, its considerably better than a completely Right or Left country, and they might as well be thankful for that (Even if you don't really accept this point). If there's one thing I've learnt from the news, it can always be worse.
Maybe they could enter politics, like all the people here in India do, and showcase it someplace else.
I do agree that maybe they shouldn't be playing the national anthem before these matches. However, for international matches, its a good practice to bring in a sense of pride of the country you're going to be playing for, and I guess they're just keeping up with this tradition over here too.
All I want to say is that maybe these players should pause this protest, and let the authorities decide whether the national anthem should be played in the first place or not.
(Sorry if my thoughts seem a bit jumbled. I don't really take part in too many debates concerning politics and I don't have a proper view on anything and that's why I don't know what to support and what to debate against)
+PaperBag If a soldier thinks that a singing of the national anthem before a football game is about them, then they have greater problems than can be easily addressed.
For that matter, what must such a soldier think about the nation electing a draft-dodging dolt who "always wanted a Purple Heart" award, insults military families that criticize him, calls the leaders of the military idiots, and claims that he and he alone has fixed all the problems that were making the military weak?
Taking a knee during the national anthem is about as peaceful and non-disrespectful a form of protest as is possible, unless the definition of "respectful" is "compulsive adherence to social ritual." That people are letting Trump rile them up about it again further demonstrates both his unsuitability as a leader and their gullibility.
+Dave Hill You got a point there
+Dave Hill What is the signing actually about?
What is a national anthem actually for, then?
+PaperBag Well, its use (esp. in this case) is not dictated by law, or even lengthy custom. I've always seen it as a generalized social expression of patriotism, that we are of one broad political tribe and that we honor that solidarity and the pride we have about the history and ideals of our country.
It doesn't specifically honor any particular individual or group. It has a military air about it (as the song itself celebrates a flag that lasted overnight during an assault on a fort during the War of 1812), but it's directed at the symbolic flag and nation as a whole.
As such, it's a political action, fundamentally if broadly. Someone with problematic sentiments about aspects of our history, or of our country at present, is certainly within their rights to decline to participate. Out of politeness to those around, such lack of participation should most likely be respectful — taking a knee, as an example, vs sitting on the bench or bleachers chit-chatting with others.
Interestingly enough, the playing of the national anthem before sporting events really only became a big thing in the US after the 9/11 attacks in 2001, as a show of national solidarity. And, as the links above indicate, involving the players in it for football only goes back to 2009.
+Dave Hill It sounds pretty much useless for things except for international matches.
Here in India, the national anthem is played before movies in the cinema, but I don't really mind. It's not like 52 seconds are going to be a pain in the ass (although many liberals here have a problem with it for some reason I've never really understood).
I don't know, I've always thought of the respecting the national anthem as a fundamental duty. Our Constitution says that it is one, so nobody can argue with that. Our anthem and flag is misused by the Left, and sometimes even the Right, and that's why at first I thought it was rude of the players in America to do what they did.
Isn't it weird how these things are so different in other places?
+PaperBag I've read that in India that the anthem is sung before movies, and I'm sure most Americans would think that weird (though some would probably think it a great idea).
Yes. In the US, legal compulsion to "show respect" is strictly at odds with our Constitution, violating free speech. The question here is social compulsion to "show respect" — can / should the players be fired, should the teams that not do so be boycotted, etc.
(The broader question is what Trump is after in making a big stink about this when it had largely died down as a cause celebre. Is he just drumming up support from his nationalist / racist base, or is he trying to distract from other failures, or what?)
+Dave Hill So you're saying the compulsion to show respect is against free speech?
+PaperBag Yes, particularly "showing respect" toward a political institution or entity. Freedom of speech (expression) is both speaking (acting) and not speaking (not acting).
+Dave Hill but isn't it weird if people complain about the entity that grants them the freedom to complain in the first place?
That's like biting the hand that feeds the mouth
+PaperBag The national anthem protests were (at least initially and, so far as I follow along, still) about police violence toward blacks, and that unvarnished enthusiasm and support of national symbols in the face of institutional racism is wrong and should be protested.
What is being protested is not the nation itself, but the gap between what people see as its ideals and its reality.
Bear in mind as well that, from an American perspective, the government / nation doesn't grant freedom and rights, they are intrinsic to and inalienable from the individual, and the government is restricted from abridging such rights.)
Eric, you know the Pentagon paid the NFL to have these patriotic displays as a recruiting tool, in the first place, right? So who’s bringing politics into the stadium?
And when we pay people to enforce the law, we don’t expect them to go shooting citizens all over the place. Go educate yourself.
@George – Eric won’t see your comments, but I consider them spot-on.
+Dave Hill oh okay
You know, according to science, all people are more likely to shoot a black person than any other colored person
Something to do with the facial structure I think
+PaperBag Something to do with race prejudice, I think.
+Dave Hill no no even the Chinese and even black people are more inclined
But cops are supposed to be trained to be have more guided instincts than the average individual
+PaperBag It is perfectly believable that even black police officers would buy into race-class prejudice against blacks. We've seen it happen.
Police training, sadly, varies significantly, and often involves cultural training where cops are taught that their number one job is protecting themselves and their fellow cops, not the people they encounter.
Do you have some "science" to cite behind the idea that black people are more likely to be shot because of facial structure?
+Dave Hill yeah wait I think I have the research paper link saved somewhere.
The problem with research these days is that it may be perfectly legit or maybe just some pseudoscience made up by the far Right.
I've seen it happen way too many times in the medical field